Allowed

Satya Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024CRLA/6148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting bail application. The High Court held that the prosecution's onus was yet to be discharged, investigation was nearly complete, and there was no likelihood of witnesses being won over. Bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on regular bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Satya Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:133228

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6148 of 2024 Appellant :- Satya Narayan Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶5

Appellant-Satya Narayan Singh has filed this appeal to challenge the order dated 3rd June, 2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, whereby his application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail pending trial in Case Crime No. 437 of 2024, under Sections 376, 354C, 406, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad, has been rejected.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that as per allegations in the FIR, the husband of the complainant was employed as a Driver with the accused, who had purchased his bearing Registration No. "DL 1ZC 0896" against a sale consideration of Rs. 3,80,000/-, and allegedly a sum of Rs. 2,16,400/- was paid to the accused, in cash and by depositing in his account. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of rape levelled by the prosecutrix are without any particulars and are not even believable, and the appellant has been falsely implicated, because he already got registered

¶7

a case bearing FIR No. 0283 of 2024 against the complainant's husband on 28th March, 2024 for criminal breach of trust etc., who did not return the vehicle of the accused. He submits that the appellant is in custody since 23rd May, 2024 and the investigation is almost at the completion stage, therefore, his further detention may not be necessary. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2024 be set aside and the appellant be released on bail.

¶8

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2-complainant.

¶9

While opposing the prayer, learned State Counsel has referred to the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to point out that according to the prosecutrix, the accused had raped her 56 times, and it resulted in pregnancy also, which was terminated by administering medicines to her. However, during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned State Counsel that neither any particulars of rape are given by the complainant nor any evidence relating to the alleged abortion or electronic evidence of the alleged rape is collected during investigation.

¶10

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, particularly, the material placed on record of the case, this Court finds that the charges set up by the prosecution

¶11

against the accused would be tested on the strength of the prosecution evidence and the said onus is yet to be discharged. The appellant is in custody since his arrest on 23.5.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, further detention of the appellant behind the bars may not be necessary. The material witnesses in the case are either the complainant or the other official witnesses and at present, there is nothing to indicate that there is any likelihood of their being won over.

¶12

A reading of the impugned order would show that the Special Court (SC/ST Act), Ghaziabad has erroneously refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the accused as it is a fit case for extending the concession of regular bail to the appellant.

¶13

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 3rd June, 2024 is set aside, the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby accepted, and it is ordered that the appellant– Satya Narayan Singh , be released on regular bail in the above case crime subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶14

The appeal is allowed.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.8.2024/Brijesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satya Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Alauddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoj and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Pramod Kumar Ojha vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Haldar vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Mohsin vs State of U.P. and 4 Others